comradekingu
Glowing ember
All major religions are big because they are ugly in that aspect. They may have it in writing somewhere, but its only a tool to point towards to defend the contradictory claims.
My journey into atheism and theories on life
- Thread starter SNESFAN
- Start date
The main problem of those threads is, that "everyone is too busy in their own bubble" (quote by Lolla) and tend to monologues instead of connecting.
I really wished, that someone (especcially snesfan, because I read all of his stuff too) would really have reacted to my first post here.
I really wished, that someone (especcially snesfan, because I read all of his stuff too) would really have reacted to my first post here.
Last edited by a moderator:
SNESFAN
Retro game fanatic
I'm sorry, I did read your post before, and I just read it again. I didn't have anything constructive to say in favor or against your beliefs.
Buddhist type of religions seem like a good option but I still feel any sort of supernatural powers at be are hard for me to appreciate fully. Things like spirits and reincarnation have more of a chance of being true I suppose but could easily just be fabrications of desires to think there is a existence after this one. From my current understanding the life lessons it teaches are solid and instills a solid moral compass but offers little in the way of provable theories to questions of life and death. While a awesome template for the time in between the two I can't jump on board with it because the fuzzy logic before and after are just to fuzzy for me.
I do feel everything has a very general connection with everything else though. We all share the same "junk" but I don't personally feel it goes beyond that. My views on existence and the interaction are more "sterile" and "hollow" I guess than most of those types of beliefs. I would very much agree that when you die you will become something else though. It may very well even be organic, be it a plant or a bug or whatever. Not your perception and what some would call a soul. No but the material that makes up your body and mind will just decay and turn to dirt, serving as nutrients for another creature and so will continue forever. Your energy as in matter being energy will exist forever supposedly. That is if the theory that matter can't be destroyed is true.
Buddhist type of religions seem like a good option but I still feel any sort of supernatural powers at be are hard for me to appreciate fully. Things like spirits and reincarnation have more of a chance of being true I suppose but could easily just be fabrications of desires to think there is a existence after this one. From my current understanding the life lessons it teaches are solid and instills a solid moral compass but offers little in the way of provable theories to questions of life and death. While a awesome template for the time in between the two I can't jump on board with it because the fuzzy logic before and after are just to fuzzy for me.
I do feel everything has a very general connection with everything else though. We all share the same "junk" but I don't personally feel it goes beyond that. My views on existence and the interaction are more "sterile" and "hollow" I guess than most of those types of beliefs. I would very much agree that when you die you will become something else though. It may very well even be organic, be it a plant or a bug or whatever. Not your perception and what some would call a soul. No but the material that makes up your body and mind will just decay and turn to dirt, serving as nutrients for another creature and so will continue forever. Your energy as in matter being energy will exist forever supposedly. That is if the theory that matter can't be destroyed is true.
Last edited by a moderator:
SNESFAN
Retro game fanatic
sorry I was on my mobile and wanted to continue but didn't want to continue typing on my screen.
Yes, I did lump taoism in with buddism even if they are completely separate, if those aren't your beliefs I'm sorry I implied that. My knowledge on those religions are extremely basic and I'm sure go way deeper than I'm giving it credit. They may and probably are completely separate ideas. From my understanding of religious roots in judeo christian I probably incorrectly assumed they shared the same roots. Sorry for being simple.
EDIT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_teachings
Yes, I did lump taoism in with buddism even if they are completely separate, if those aren't your beliefs I'm sorry I implied that. My knowledge on those religions are extremely basic and I'm sure go way deeper than I'm giving it credit. They may and probably are completely separate ideas. From my understanding of religious roots in judeo christian I probably incorrectly assumed they shared the same roots. Sorry for being simple.
EDIT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_teachings
Last edited by a moderator:
(sorry about ranting, but I thought it was clear. In my perception I was sharing a lot of opinions with the op, so I believed it was okay to rant. Now I tried to elaborate on my points and correct some misleading wording and false use of vocabulary. Also I did not do my homework on northern religion)
I am just quickly going to add my opinion: I do not believe in any supernatural entities. I find it amusing that people do, they should be able to believe what they want but they restrain themselves about it in public please. I cannot understand or see the necessity for religious influences in politics.
I think hat:
-A president or leading politician of any state or country should not be inaugurated using religious references.
-A ruling political party should not base their agenda on religious views (while I believe it's okay to address issues regarding freedom of religion, equality etc).
-Specific religions should not be taught in schools but rather kids should be educated for critical and independent thinking (if at all possible in school) and learn about all kinds of religions.
FFS there are still wars being lead because of religions/backed through religious belief. Ever noticed that Israelis and Palestinians look a lot alike? It's because most of them are from the same country and only believe that they are ethnically different (EDIT: I am only trying to make a point about the apparent racism in religious and political squabbles going on there, it's there and both sides propagate it to a certain extent)!!!
(EDIT: The recent German history reference was a perfect example of many people suddenly ignoring what they used to believe in and doing the exact opposite of what their former moral rules used to dictate, while a lot of authoritive figures adapted to the regime and even justified it, while it was also opressing and killing their own "sheep" (the people who actually did stick to christian moral).)
And yes, German jews looked exactly like German christians and then they suddenly decided it was ok to gas their neighbours because a little man with mustache and a funny voice told them they were of different ethnicity and race. Suddenly all these people believing in christian moral (do not kill, do not steal) switched to Führerkult and a weird pseudo Germanic religion and began to kill and steal wherever they could (jewelry and gold from the teeth of the millions of victims, land and homes of their former schoolmates and work colleagues, even entire companies). Yeah, religion helped a lot there... and while lots of christian leaders even tried to jump onto the nazi bandwagon, justifying the regime, they even started to deport the few "true" christians that were trying to defend their ideals and who helped jewish people or spoke out against the injustice.
IMO today it's not enough to argue that Europe has a mostly christian history for example. The world is interconnected and we have replaced religious moral with new paradigms (ethics, sovereign state, democratic principle, justice based on secular ethics not a vengeful deity). We do not need religion for society to advance, it's in the way. It is however important cultural heritage and should be preserved.
EDIT:Governments should protect religious groups to a certain extent, but not try to take a side and oppress another group. At the same time it should protect the non-believers in the same respect.
I do not know what makes the world work either however. Now go and read Goethe's "Faust 1". Seriously, DO IT!
Edit: removed words because of hurt feelings. Also elaborated on several points, as comradekingu pointed out.
I am just quickly going to add my opinion: I do not believe in any supernatural entities. I find it amusing that people do, they should be able to believe what they want but they restrain themselves about it in public please. I cannot understand or see the necessity for religious influences in politics.
I think hat:
-A president or leading politician of any state or country should not be inaugurated using religious references.
-A ruling political party should not base their agenda on religious views (while I believe it's okay to address issues regarding freedom of religion, equality etc).
-Specific religions should not be taught in schools but rather kids should be educated for critical and independent thinking (if at all possible in school) and learn about all kinds of religions.
FFS there are still wars being lead because of religions/backed through religious belief. Ever noticed that Israelis and Palestinians look a lot alike? It's because most of them are from the same country and only believe that they are ethnically different (EDIT: I am only trying to make a point about the apparent racism in religious and political squabbles going on there, it's there and both sides propagate it to a certain extent)!!!
(EDIT: The recent German history reference was a perfect example of many people suddenly ignoring what they used to believe in and doing the exact opposite of what their former moral rules used to dictate, while a lot of authoritive figures adapted to the regime and even justified it, while it was also opressing and killing their own "sheep" (the people who actually did stick to christian moral).)
And yes, German jews looked exactly like German christians and then they suddenly decided it was ok to gas their neighbours because a little man with mustache and a funny voice told them they were of different ethnicity and race. Suddenly all these people believing in christian moral (do not kill, do not steal) switched to Führerkult and a weird pseudo Germanic religion and began to kill and steal wherever they could (jewelry and gold from the teeth of the millions of victims, land and homes of their former schoolmates and work colleagues, even entire companies). Yeah, religion helped a lot there... and while lots of christian leaders even tried to jump onto the nazi bandwagon, justifying the regime, they even started to deport the few "true" christians that were trying to defend their ideals and who helped jewish people or spoke out against the injustice.
IMO today it's not enough to argue that Europe has a mostly christian history for example. The world is interconnected and we have replaced religious moral with new paradigms (ethics, sovereign state, democratic principle, justice based on secular ethics not a vengeful deity). We do not need religion for society to advance, it's in the way. It is however important cultural heritage and should be preserved.
EDIT:Governments should protect religious groups to a certain extent, but not try to take a side and oppress another group. At the same time it should protect the non-believers in the same respect.
I do not know what makes the world work either however. Now go and read Goethe's "Faust 1". Seriously, DO IT!
Edit: removed words because of hurt feelings. Also elaborated on several points, as comradekingu pointed out.
Last edited by a moderator:
@ xnopasaranx: You find aspects of other people's beliefs "amusing"? "People should shut the hell up about in public"? I do believe some of the things you have said are downright offensive, not to mention sounding somewhat like facism. I do agree with SOME of the things you said, but I think your word use could have been a little better, and not so facist sounding.
But hey, that's my opinion and will probably be missed in this thread of everyone talking past each other. Nevermind, eh.
But hey, that's my opinion and will probably be missed in this thread of everyone talking past each other. Nevermind, eh.
Godwin's law is suddenly very strong here, a leftfascist must be somewhere near.
I disagree.
People should be able to believe whatever they want, and say whatever they want about their own, or any one else's beliefs.
What they should not be allowed to do, however, is have a significantly adverse effect on other's lives as a result of following their chosen beliefs.
SNESFAN
Retro game fanatic
You say it like that's actually a problem. Not everything has to be the direct reply to remain on topic or be an interesting read.
I actually prefer reading threads like this. Most people seeming to ignore each other and just posting their opinions on the subject without actually replying to anyone. I think it reduces arguments quite a bit. This is a hot button topic for most people and that might be the only way not to have this turn into a flamewar and still have your opinions heard.
You don't have to read everyone's opinions to stay with the conversation and yet you can have the feeling as if your point is made if you just feel like jumping in and leaving your 2c.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not fascist, but radical. I am asking for a secular state! Maybe I was being too polemic. By shutting up about it in public I mean what I am stating as my opinion in the following passage: politics and public affairs! I am just very tired of religious people trying to force their opinion on others, claiming to be tolerant and asking for tolerance, while they disrespect the beliefs of others. I tolerate the beliefs of other people, why can't they respect that I do not believe? If I am asked for my opinion though, I will give it. and in my perception believing in things that to me are fictional, is amusing. wether it's fairies, reptilians or god doesn't matter. that doesn't mean I will laugh in their face and call them stupid when I find out that someone believes in god. I also do not think it is stupid to believe in something, just because I don't. I just think it is really really really stupid to vote someone into an executive or leading position of government who believes the earth is no more than 6000 years old (for example), or let them feed your kids in school with that stuff. If parents want their children to be educated in a religious way, they should send them to church for confirmation class or quran school or whatever.
EDIT (changed some offensive stuff to more generally offensive stuff): Singling out a child for being different and telling him and other kids that he is possessed by demons as an explanation... THAT is fascist. Absolutely intolerable and unacceptable behaviour of grown up and educated people. Why are these people still working at a school again? If you are talking about me saying: "shut the hell up"... it's only words. Don't be offended.
Last edited by a moderator:
Null
Snug
<gravedigging>My viewpoint on religion is feel free to believe whatever crazy stuff you want to, just don't annoy/harm other people in the process.</gravedigging>
SNESFAN
Retro game fanatic
You see the bill nye vs ken ham debate? While not satisfying debate (agree to disagree) both sides brought up some very good points of view and how big the problem I was faced with growing up in my little part of america. (The place it was held is less than an hour from me)
Last edited by a moderator:
Null
Snug
. Interesting though.
Last edited by a moderator:
Granitehead
Advanced Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2009
- Messages
- 3,011
I haven't watched the debate myself, but I heard the religious gui lost pretty badly without even noting it. Does this sum it up?
I've watched some of those monotheist vs. atheist debates and they just tend to annoy me. They skip around issues randomly without ever sticking to one long enough to even begin to solve it.
I've watched some of those monotheist vs. atheist debates and they just tend to annoy me. They skip around issues randomly without ever sticking to one long enough to even begin to solve it.
SNESFAN
Retro game fanatic
Its worth watching for sure. The thing I took away from it is what Mr ham calls observable science vs historical science. Historical science is laughable term, however what he means to say is observation vs theory. And they currently get wrapped into one blanket science. There are strong theories with lots of supporting information, observations, and mathematical formulas. Then there are weak theories that are only supported by observations. And evolution as it refers to early life on this planet is a pretty weak theory. While the most plausible answer might not be the correct answer. It is a hell of a lot stronger theory than creationism that has no supporting evidence or observations at all. Just documentation that was of from a supposed divine source.
Historical science is an actual "non thing" but we don't separate observation and thoery enough in schools, and especially don't explain the difference between a weak theory and strong one. Ken ham may not have said it like that, but it is a very true statement.
Historical science is an actual "non thing" but we don't separate observation and thoery enough in schools, and especially don't explain the difference between a weak theory and strong one. Ken ham may not have said it like that, but it is a very true statement.
Last edited by a moderator:
WizardStan
Mega GP Mania
- Joined
- May 24, 2008
- Messages
- 16,731
In science, "theory" is for all intents and purposes fact. If we just have an idea it is a hypothesis. Experiments are then conducted to test the hypothesis, those experiments are reviewed, frequently reperformed by other teams, other hypthosises are tested, and when we find a hypothesis that experimentation does not prove is false it gets promoted to a theory. Basically.
If a scientist calls something a "theory", there is no hard or weak, you can basically take it as fact because everything we currently know about the world makes it the most accurate. New information could come along, we could learn something that we didn't used to know and from that we can come up with a new experiment that disproves the theory and forces it to change, but that's the exciting thing about science, that we can learn something new that completely changes the way we look at the world.
If a scientist calls something a "theory", there is no hard or weak, you can basically take it as fact because everything we currently know about the world makes it the most accurate. New information could come along, we could learn something that we didn't used to know and from that we can come up with a new experiment that disproves the theory and forces it to change, but that's the exciting thing about science, that we can learn something new that completely changes the way we look at the world.
SNESFAN
Retro game fanatic
In terms of the theory of evolution as it pertains to early life it is not as strong as the theory of say relativity so there are definite levels of strength behind those theories. I understand a unsubstantiated claim is a hypothesis and a confirmed hypothesis becomes a theory and is so until proven wrong. I believe that's the problem, how do you separate a highly supported theory to one that only has a small amount of support.
Last edited by a moderator:
If you mean 'first life coming into existance' when you write 'early life', then the theory of evolution doesn't apply at all, because there are only sketchy hypotheses available at all and we shouldn't hold our breath to get definitive answers anytime soon.
When it is about 'how organisms change over time within their environment' (my English doesn't allow for a more precise formulation) then the theory of evolution is just as strong as relativity.
It is a typical strawman questioning evolution in a context where it doesn't apply (but similiar ideas are discussed as candidates) just to confuse your audience enough to get away with questioning evolution in a context where it obviously and without reasonable doubt applies (like human ancestry, even if very few homo sapiens ancestors are actually found in the fossil record).
Besides the religious angle I think that human brains have generally more difficulty grasping stochastic phenomena like quantum mechanics and evolution than deterministic ones like the effects of relativity. Therefore I didn't mean to imply that people that let themselves be confused are simply stupid.
When it is about 'how organisms change over time within their environment' (my English doesn't allow for a more precise formulation) then the theory of evolution is just as strong as relativity.
It is a typical strawman questioning evolution in a context where it doesn't apply (but similiar ideas are discussed as candidates) just to confuse your audience enough to get away with questioning evolution in a context where it obviously and without reasonable doubt applies (like human ancestry, even if very few homo sapiens ancestors are actually found in the fossil record).
Besides the religious angle I think that human brains have generally more difficulty grasping stochastic phenomena like quantum mechanics and evolution than deterministic ones like the effects of relativity. Therefore I didn't mean to imply that people that let themselves be confused are simply stupid.
Similar threads
